It's not that women didn't have to fight in combat, it's that they weren't allowed to. They weren't seen as capable, strong or sensible enough to fight, and that sending them to war would be akin to sending a small child. Male soldiers would be forced to defend and care for them rather than fight.

In fact, one of the main things feminists have fought for is the right to serve in the armed forces and the right to go into combat and defend their country alongside men. The mindset behind sending men into the selective service wasn't that women were better than men and therefore got a free pass, it's that women were too weak to fight. If feminism is so hellbent on men down, why did feminists fight so hard to enter the workplace and enter combat rather than just let men do all the dirty work while they got to stay at home and reap the rewards?

Yeah, that's very true. Like I said, I'm not saying that there are no issues where men have it worse. You just touched on one of them. Tons of Redditors will also jump at the chance to discuss men's chances in alimony or rape cases or any other number of things.

Feminism's point is that generally, in everyday life, women occupy and have occupied a lower standard or class or rung or whatever you want to call it than men do. Look at things like the pay gap, suffrage, domestic violence, how certain religious groups view women, etc. Society has come a long way in many areas, but there's still a lot of ground to make up.

Again, I am NOT saying that men have it great all the time ever. The draft rules suck and custody cases suck and lots of things suck. But more things suck for women.

Hell, last year, females in my class were flown to another county to get trained as leaders. The men did not get this offer. Reverse that.

If anything, this thread has made me simultaneously respect feminists as people more, but made me feel even less for their cause. I've done research for almost every comment I've made here, and I keep finding that men are currently at a disadvantage in a lot of places.

Your singular experience with one group of people in one school has nothing to do with feminism as a whole. It's a global issue. Lots of people have anecdotes. They don't matter. Almost all of my female friends make more money than I do, and my mom is the breadwinner in my family. That doesn't say anything about the rest of the country or the world.

I'm gonna be lazy and take some stuff from Wikipedia:

Feminist activists campaign for women's rights – such as in contract law, property, and voting – while also promoting bodily integrity, autonomy, and reproductive rights for women. Feminist campaigns have changed societies, particularly in the West, by achieving women's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, equal pay for women, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property.[12][13] Feminists have worked to protect women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.[14][15][16] They have also advocated for workplace rights, including maternity leave, and against forms of discrimination against women.[12][13][17] Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, bell hooks and other feminists have argued that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.[18]

As you can see, feminism encompasses a fairly wide range of issues, and not all of them are quantifiable, like social standing. You also have to account for cultural and regional differences. Yeah, women in the Western world tend to have it fairly OK. But what about Saudi or Afghani women? What about Africa, where possibly more than 100 million women have experienced genital mutilation?

This isn't limited to developed countries or the West or any other area. It's all around the world, and women in a lot of those places have it worse.

But you guys still mutilate your own babies down there in the USA. Isn't that a problem? I fail to see the impact feminists have on the anything but the west. The situation down there is fucked up, sure, but I don't think feminism is the answer. The sexism there is so heavily integrated in their society.

The classification of circumcision as "mutilation" is very contentious, especially considering that it's typically performed by a medical professional, not some witch doctor with a knife. Don't equate the two. This is your problem here. You're looking at all men's and women's issues as a 1:1 deal when many of them are actually quite uneven.

The situation down there is fucked up, sure, but I don't think feminism is the answer.

Feminism isn't a course of action or a plan, it's a belief. It's a belief that gender rights should be equal, which, at this point in time, means improving women's rights and social standing. If you read the Wikipedia paragraph I quoted above, you'll notice that some people include men in feminism.

So yes, feminism is the answer, because if no one believes that anyone needs to be helped, no one will be helped. Feminism doesn't provide for how that should be done, because that's not the point of it.

So yes, feminism is the answer, because if no one believes that anyone needs to be helped, no one will be helped. Feminism doesn't provide for how that should be done, because that's not the point of it.

Not to be pedantic, but wouldn't that make feminism the question?

Which isn't to say that questions are worse than answers. After all, answers won't be found if the question isn't asked.

I don't identify as a feminist though, and I still believe we should try and help the people down there in some way. Personally I don't allow myself to care too much, because I can't do anything about it anyways, but I definitely think someone should do something, regardless of what they identify as.

Also, unnecessarily cutting off part of a baby's dick should be contentious. It's seriously fucked up.

Hell, last year, females in my class were flown to another county to get trained as leaders. The men did not get this offer. Reverse that.

Could it be because it's assumed men don't need to be trained as leaders because they're just naturally better at in than women? Isn't misandry based in part on the idea that men are bumbling and inept and women are somehow better? If so, then why would they be sending women off to train as leaders? Wouldn't they assume that men would need more leadership training than women if that were the case?

discrimination (misandry merely being the male-victimizing variant of sex/gender discrimination) is not only about assuming incompetence in the victimized demographic. It is about disenfranchising one demographic to the benefit of another. In this case, at the most superficial level the women got to go on an exciting international trip based solely on the configuration of their reproductive organs.

In my worldview, it can sometimes be difficult to say who is really getting the benefit in cases of discrimination. Instead I just view all discrimination (based on irrelevant character traits like gender, orientation or race) as harmful to all people, with less emphasis on the specifics. Steal the rainfall from one area to concentrate in another area, and you may get droughts here and floods there. Both have their drawbacks, though circumstantially one drawback is normally more acute than the other. But neither ought to be suffered and regardless of where the symptoms are most acute the prescription is normally to seek a better balance.

While I like your logic, and agree, it's not the way feminists, or even normal people perceive it.
They see it as societal change bringing us closer to a better society. What they fail to realize it that they simultaneously manage to fuck over both men and themselves by painting us as strong and themselves as weak.

I hate you break it to you, pal, but I consider myself a feminist and a mostly normal person.
And while I appreciate what these "women-only" leadership conventions are intended to do (which is to put us on equal footing with men in the workplace), I find it unfortunate that businesses think they're necessary. I don't like that women are perceived as needing a handicap in the game of life so that they can compete with men.
I understand that for the most part, it's essentially allowing women to play catch-up and give them access to the same resources (networks, mentors, advice, etc) that elder businessmen have had a lifetime to acquire naturally and are more apt to share with their younger male coworkers than their female ones. It was necessary when women were just starting to work their way up the corporate ladder. As more women are taking leadership positions and those still clinging to the idea that we're less capable retire, I think the whole concept of woman-only leadership training will fall out of favor as old-fashioned and patronizing. The only place I can see it being useful in the long term is government, where women are still woefully underrepresented.

Suffrage is still a problem. There is still a very present wage gap for women. I would like to see this fellows math, considering the huge discrepancies in wages in various industries. I think this is best analyzed when men and women hold the same job but women get paid less. Yes, in some cases they make 98% of what men make, but there are very few jobs where that' s a reality. this chart is the most current I could find.